The Sequestration Scare

What is sequestration, and why it is both good and bad.

As predicted, the Democrats’ refusal to cut any spending other than the military only delayed the inevitable. Now, as is already taking place in Greece, France and Spain, deep cuts must take place or the government will shut down. The fiscal cliff agreement and the Budget Control Act of 2011 called for sequestration on March 1st if an agreement on how to pay down the deficit was not reached. The sequestration mandates $1.2 trillion in spending cuts across the board throughout most of the federal government over the next decade. The only way to prevent sequestration is if the Democrats and Republicans come up with a compromise this week, which could involve tax increases, agreed-upon cuts, or both.

Sequestration is nothing new, it first appeared in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985. Yet Obama is using it to scare people and make the Republicans look bad. Obama falsely claims the sequestration was Congress’s idea. PolitiFact.com analyzed that and other statements Obama has made about the sequestration and found them to be false or half-truths.

Obama wants to frighten Americans into believing the Republicans are about to shut down government again as happened in the 1990s. If sequestration takes place, he will claim that it could have been avoided if the Republicans had agreed to increase taxes. He is hoping that by declaring sky is falling scenarios, Congress will agree to pass tax hikes and avoid making some of the cuts. This would do nothing but postpone the problem again.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Print Friendly

3 comments to The Sequestration Scare

  • Bill Wavering

    There are three reasons why the President is being especially disingenuous on this sequestration matter; not the least of which is that it was his idea to begin with.

    First; the proposed ‘cuts’ amount to .04% of spending per year. That’s correct four one-hundredths of one percent. Absolutely miniscule.

    Second; the President wants tax loopholes closed in order to account for 66% of the annual ‘cut. Remember four months back when he held out for a tax INCREASE on the supposedly wealthiest Americans in exchange for a temporary budget deal? The Speaker offered to close tax loopholes equal to the President’s demand for revenues instead. Well; Obama got his tax increases and now he’s back for a second bite at the apple. He now wants the loophole deal as part of the way forward to stopping sequester.

    Third; A few days ago the White House came out with a state-by-state description of the calamities that will befall each and every state in the union if the sequester were to come to pass. A listing of the teacher layoffs, and the child care credit cutoffs and a laundry list of other programs like border security and TSA layoffs that will happen under this program. Too bad the White House couldn’t produce a budget as quickly as it seems to be able to produce talking points.

    So let’s sum it all up…We cant’ possibly find more than $120 billion to take out of a $3 trillion annual expenditure. We cannot possibly trim all the $120 billion so $66 billion of it has to come from another tax increase; the second in four months. If we don’t get what we want; we’ll direct the discretionary cuts so they are absolutely most harmful to the average citizen and, oh yeah, will deny any culpability in the matter and lay it all at the feet of uncompromising conservatives.

    Barack Obama: What a pant load!

  • sedonaman

    Bill:

    Re: “If we don’t get what we want; we’ll direct the discretionary cuts so they are absolutely most harmful to the average citizen …”

    This is how tax-and-spenders win, but it also really shows how vulnerable their useless programs are. If forced to prioritize, those would go to the bottom out of necessity, and the high priority ones go to the top. So the proverbial federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish program gets the ax while defense is fully funded.

    One thing that boggles my mind is how he can get away with proposing new programs at the same time he claims to want to balance a budget that is in such terrible shape that we have to raise taxes … again.

  • Bill Wavering

    I think the idea is that as long as the ‘rich’ are still wriggling, they haven’t given enough and as long as there is a welfare recepient out there without a 65″ flat screen and a 4G cell contract we haven’t spent enough

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply








Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



IC Contributors